by Janet Browne
Adam Sedgwick to Darwin,
24 November 1859, DCP 2548
I have heard by round about channel that [John] Herschel says my Book “is the law of higgledy-pigglety”.—What this exactly means I do not know, but it is evidently very contemptuous.—If true this is great blow & discouragement.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
[10 December 1859], DCP 2575
Yesterday evening when I read the Times of previous day I was amazed to find a splendid Essay & Review of me. Who can the author be? I am intensely curious. It included a eulogium of me, which quite touched me, though I am not vain enough to think it all deserved.—The Author is a literary man & German scholar.—He has read my Book very attentively; but what is very remarkable, it seems that he is a profound naturalist. He knows my Barnacle book, & appreciates it too highly.—Lastly he writes & thinks with quite uncommon force & clearness; & what is even still rarer his writing is seasoned with most pleasant wit…. Certainly I should have said that there was only one man in England who could have written this Essay & that you were the man. But I suppose I am wrong, & that there is some hidden genius of great calibre.
Darwin to T. H. Huxley,
28 December [1859], DCP 2611
Everybody has read Mr. Darwin’s book, or, at least, has given an opinion upon its merits or demerits; pietists, whether lay or ecclesiastic, decry it with the mild railing which sounds so charitable; bigots denounce it with ignorant invective; old ladies of both sexes consider it a decidedly dangerous book, and even savants, who have no better mud to throw, quote antiquated writers to show that its author is no better than an ape himself; while every philosophical thinker hails it as a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism; and all competent naturalists and physiologists, whatever their opinions as to the ultimate fate of the doctrines put forth, acknowledge that the work in which they are embodied is a solid contribution to knowledge and inaugurates a new epoch in natural history.
T.H. Huxley, Westminster Review, 1860, 541
Extinguished theologians lie about the cradle of every science as the strangled snakes beside that of Hercules; and history records that whenever science and orthodoxy have been fairly opposed, the latter has been forced to retire from the lists, bleeding and crushed if not annihilated; scotched, if not slain.
T. H. Huxley, Westminster Review, 1860, 556
My reflection, when I first made myself master of the central idea of the Origin, was, “How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!”
T. H. Huxley, quoted in Life and Letters, vol. 2, 197
Except some skill in the exposition of his opinions, and a moderate acquaintance with the results of recent inquiry, the author of the Vestiges added nothing to the “development theory” of Lamarck that could weigh with a mind trained to scientific investigation…. When we say that the conclusions announced by Mr. Darwin are such as, if established, would cause a complete revolution in the fundamental doctrines of natural history—and further, that although his theory is essentially distinct from the development theory of the Vestiges of Creation, it tends so far in the same direction as to trench upon the territory of established religious belief—we imply that his work is one of the most important that for a long time past have been given to the public. We have not been amongst the foremost to pass our judgment upon it, for it is a book—we say it deliberately—that will not bear to be dealt with lightly.
Review, Darwin’s Origin of Species, Saturday Review, 24 December 1859, 775
These are the most important original observations, recorded in the volume of 1859: they are, in our estimation, its real gems,—few indeed and far apart, and leaving the determination of the origin of species very nearly where the author found it…. Failing the adequacy of such observations, not merely to carry conviction, but to give a colour to the hypothesis, we were then left to confide in the superior grasp of mind, strength of intellect, clearness and precision of thought and expression, which raise one man so far above his contemporaries, as to enable him to discern in the common stock of facts, of coincidences, correlations and analogies in Natural History, deeper and truer conclusions than his fellow-labourers had been able to reach. These expectations, we must confess, received a check on perusing the first sentence in the book.
R. Owen 1860, 494, 495–96
I have just read the Edinburgh [Review], which without doubt is by Owen. It is extremely malignant, clever & I fear will be very damaging.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
10 April [1860], DCP 2754
Since natural science deals only with secondary or natural causes, the scientific terms of a theory of derivation of species … must needs be the same to the theist as to the atheist…. Wherefore, Darwin’s reticence about efficient cause does not disturb us. He considers only the scientific questions.
Asa Gray 1860, 412
There has been a plethora of Reviews, & I am really quite sick of myself.
Darwin to Charles Lyell,
10 April [1860], DCP 2754
I know not how, or to whom, to express fully my admiration of Darwin’s book. To him it would seem flattery, to others self-praise; but I do honestly believe that with however much patience I had worked and experimented on the subject, I could never have approached the completeness of his book, its vast accumulation of evidence, its overwhelming argument, and its admirable tone and spirit. I really feel thankful that it has not been left to me to give the theory to the world.
A.R. Wallace to H. W. Bates, quoted in Wallace 1905, vol. 1, 374
You must let me say how I admire the generous manner in which you speak of my Book: most persons would in your position have felt some envy or jealousy. How nobly free you seem to be of this common failing of mankind.—But you speak far too modestly of yourself;—you would, if you had had my leisure done the work just as well, perhaps better, than I have done it.
Darwin to A. R. Wallace,
18 May 1860, DCP 2807
The Bishop of Oxford [Samuel Wilberforce] came out strongly against a theory which holds it possible that man may be descended from an ape,—in which protest he is sustained by Prof. Owen, Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. Daubeny, and the most eminent naturalists assembled at Oxford [for the 1860 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science]. But others—conspicuous among these, Prof. Huxley—have expressed their willingness to accept, for themselves, as well as for their friends and enemies, all actual truths, even the last humiliating truth of a pedigree not registered in the Herald’s College. The dispute has at least made Oxford uncommonly lively during the week.
Report of the BAAS meeting, Athenæum, 7 July 1860, 19
Is it credible that all favourable varieties of turnips are tending to become men?
Wilberforce 1860, 239
If I would rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means and influence, and yet who employs those faculties for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion—I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape.
T. H. Huxley to F. Dyster,
9 September 1860, quoted in Jensen 1988, 168
How durst you attack a live Bishop in that fashion? I am quite ashamed of you! Have you no reverence for fine lawn sleeves? By Jove, you seem to have done it well.
Darwin to T. H. Huxley,
[5 July 1860], DCP 2861
The battle rages furiously in U. States. [Asa] Gray says he was preparing a speech which would take 1 ½ hour to deliver, & which he “fondly hoped would be a stunner’”. He is fighting splendidly & there seem to have been many discussions with [Louis] Agassiz & others at the meetings. Agassiz pities me much at being so deluded.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
30 May [1860], DCP 2818
The criterion of a true theory consists in the facility with which it accounts for facts accumulated in the course of long-continued investigations and for which the existing theories afforded no
explanation. It can certainly not be said that Darwin’s theory will stand by that test.
L. Agassiz 1860, 147
My book has stirred up the mud with a vengeance; & it will be a blessing to me if all my friends do not get to hate me. But I look at it as certain, if I had not stirred up the mud some one else would very soon; so that the sooner the battle is fought the sooner it will be settled,—not that the subject will be settled in our lives’ times.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
3 July [1860], DCP 2855
I shd. have been utterly smashed had it not been for you & three others.
Darwin to T. H. Huxley,
3 July [1860], DCP 2854
Mr Darwin has given the world a new science, and his name should, in my opinion, stand above that of every philosopher of ancient or modern times. The force of admiration can no further go!
A. R. Wallace to George Silk, 1 September 1860, quoted in Wallace 1905, vol. 1, 373
Dr. Whewell dissented in a practical manner for some years, by refusing to allow a copy of the “Origin of Species” to be placed in the Library of Trinity College [Cambridge].
F. Darwin in Life and Letters, v. 2, 261n.
I reckon Darwin’s book to be an utterly unphilosophical one.
William Whewell, letter to J. D. Forbes,
24 July 1860, quoted in Dictionary of Scientific Quotations, 619
For Heaven sake don’t write an anti-Darwinian article; you would do it so confoundedly well…. I shall always think those early Reviews, almost entirely yours, did the subject an enormous service.
Darwin to T. H. Huxley,
22 November [1860], DCP 2994
Am I satyr or man?
Pray tell me who can,
And settle my place in the scale.
A man in ape’s shape,
An anthropoid ape,
Or monkey deprived of his tail?
Anon, Punch, 18 May 1861
When I came to the conclusion that after all Lamarck was going to be shown to be right, that we must “go the whole orang,” I re-read his book, and remembering when it was written, I felt I had done him injustice.
Charles Lyell to Darwin,
15 March 1863, DCP 4041
The question is this: Is man an ape or an angel? Now I am on the side of the angels.
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech, quoted in Punch, 10 December 1864
I shall never forget that meeting of the combined sections of the British Association when at Oxford 1860, where Admiral Fitzroy expressed his sorrows for having given you the opportunities of collecting facts for such a shocking theory as yours.
J. V. Carus to Darwin,
15 November 1866, DCP 5282
I received, 2 or 3 days ago, a French translation of the “Origin,” by a Mlle. Royer, who must be one of the cleverest & oddest women in Europe: is ardent Deist, & hates Christianity, & declares that natural selection & the struggle for life will explain all morality, nature of man, politics, &c. &c.!
Darwin to Asa Gray,
10–20 June [1862], DCP 3595
It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers among beasts and plants the society of England, with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, inventions, and the Malthusian struggle for existence.
Karl Marx to F. Engels,
18 June 1862, Marx 1975–2004, vol. 41, 381
It is unreasonable to accuse Mr. Darwin (as has been done) of violating the rules of induction. The rules of induction are concerned with the condition of proof. Mr. Darwin has never pretended that his doctrine was proved. He was not bound by the rules of induction but by those of hypothesis. And these last have seldom been more completely fulfilled. He has opened a path of inquiry full of promise, the results of which none can foresee.
Mill 1862, vol. 2, 180
I have never, I think, in my life, been so deeply interested by any geological discussion. I now first begin to see what a million means, and I feel quite ashamed of myself at the silly way in which I have spoken of millions of years. I was formerly a great believer in the power of the sea in denudation and this was perhaps natural, as most of my geological work was done near sea coasts, and on islands…. How often I have speculated in vain on the origin of the vallies in the chalk platform round this place [Down House, Kent], but now all is clear. I thank you cordially for having cleared so much mist from before my eyes.
Darwin to James Croll,
19 September 1868, DCP 6380
Fleming Jenkins [Fleeming Jenkin] has given me much trouble, but has been of more real use to me, than any other Essay or Review.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
16 January [1869], DCP 6557
I am greatly troubled at the short duration of the world according to Sir W. Thompson, for I require for my theoretical views a very long period before the Cambrian [geological] formation.
Darwin to James Croll,
31 January [1869], DCP 6585
Hardly any point gave me so much satisfaction when I was at work on the Origin, as the explanation of the wide difference in many classes between the embryo and the adult animal, and of the close resemblance of the embryos within the same class. No notice of this point was taken, as far as I remember, in the early reviews of the Origin, and I recollect expressing my surprise on this head in a letter to Asa Gray.
Autobiography, 125
The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God…. We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism.
Hodge 1874, 177
Some of my critics have said, “Oh, he is a good observer, but has no power of reasoning.” I do not think that this can be true, for the Origin of Species is one long argument from the beginning to the end, and it has convinced not a few able men. No one could have written it without having some power of reasoning.
Autobiography, 140
Botany
I must beg sometime for a single sentence about the Galapagos plants. viz what percentage are (as far as is known) peculiar to the Archipelago? you have already told me that the plants have a S. American physionomy. And how far the collections bear out or contradict the notion of the different islands, having in some instances representative & different species.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
[16 April 1845], DCP 848
[I am] a man who hardly knows a daisy from a Dandelion.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker, [3 September 1846], DCP 996
Miss Thorley & I are doing a little Botanical work (!) for our amusement, & it does amuse me very much, viz making a collection of all the plants, which grow in a field, which has been allowed to run waste for 15 years … & we are also collecting all the plants in an adjoining & similar but cultivated field; just for the fun of seeing what plants have arrived or dyed out. Hereafter we shall want a bit of help in naming puzzlers.—How dreadfully difficult it is to name plants.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
5 June [1855], DCP 1693
I have just made out my first Grass, hurrah! hurrah! I must confess that Fortune favours the bold, for as good luck wd have it, it was the easy Anthoxanthum odoratum: nevertheless it is a great discovery; I never expected to make out a grass in all my life. So Hurrah. It has done my stomach surprising good.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
5 June [1855], DCP1693
I have been very lucky & have now examined almost every British Orchid fresh…. I cannot fancy anything more perfect than the many curious contrivances.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
19 June [1861], DCP 3190
The object of the following work is to show that the contrivances by which Orchids are fertilised, are as varied and almost as perfect as any of the most beautiful adaptations in the animal kingdom; and, secondly, to show that these contrivances have for their main object the fertilisation of each flower…. This treatise affords me also an opportunity of attempting to show that the study of organic beings may be
as interesting to an observer who is fully convinced that the structure of each is due to secondary laws, as to one who views every trifling detail of structure as the result of the direct interposition of the Creator.
Orchids, 1
In my examination of Orchids, hardly any fact has so much struck me as the endless diversity of structure,—the prodigality of resources,—for gaining the very same end, namely, the fertilisation of one flower by the pollen of another. The fact to a certain extent is intelligible on the principle of natural selection. As all the parts of a flower are co-ordinated, if slight variations in any one part are preserved from being beneficial to the plant, then the other parts will generally have to be modified in some corresponding manner.
Orchids, 348–49
[James] Bateman has just sent me a lot of orchids with the Angræcum sesquipedale: do you know its marvellous nectary 11 ½ inches long, with nectar only at the extremity. What a proboscis the moth that sucks it, must have! It is a very pretty case.
Darwin to J. D. Hooker,
30 January [1862], DCP 3421
No one else has perceived that my chief interest in my orchid book has been that it was a “flank movement” on the enemy.
Darwin to Asa Gray,
23[–24] July [1862], DCP 3662
In the summer of 1860 I was idling and resting near Hartfield [Sussex], where two species of Drosera abound; and I noticed that numerous insects had been entrapped by the leaves. I carried home some plants, and on giving them insects saw the movements of the tentacles, and this made me think it probable that the insects were caught for some special purpose…. The fact that a plant should secrete, when properly excited, a fluid containing an acid and ferment, closely analogous to the digestive fluid of an animal, was certainly a remarkable discovery.
Autobiography, 132–33
At this present moment I care more about Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world.